Moses said to the people in his final charge "I put before you life and death, blessing and curse. Choose life...Be strong and resolute..for the Lord will not forsake you" Deut. 30 and 31. Former US National Debate Champion and Ordained Rabbi tackles issues of Public Policy, Israel, Islamic Terrorism, Antisemitism, Jewish Wisdom and the Chicago Bears

PHOENIX – Amid an ongoing investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of email and hours before the public release of the Benghazi report, US Attorney General Loretta Lynch met privately with former President Bill Clinton.

The private meeting took place on the west side of Sky Harbor International Airport on board a parked private plane.

Former President Clinton was visiting the Phoenix area and arrived to Sky Harbor Monday evening to depart.

Sources tell ABC15, Clinton was notified Lynch would be arriving at the airport soon and waited for her arrival.

Lynch was arriving in Phoenix for a planned visit as part of her national tour to promote community policing.

ABC15 asked Lynch about the meeting during her news conference at the Phoenix Police Department.

“I did see President Clinton at the Phoenix airport as he was leaving and spoke to myself and my husband on the plane,” said Lynch.

The private meeting comes as Lynch’s office is in charge of the ongoing investigation and potential charges involving Clinton’s email server. . .

"It was the work of this committee that uncovered the existence of Hillary Clinton’s homebrew email server and the scandalous conduct of a State Department that allowed this breach of protocol and colluded in covering up its existence. Considering the time Clinton has spent defending herself on this issue, the legal jeopardy in which it has thrust her staff, and the damage it has done to her political image, to declare the committee’s investigation both a political exercise and a failure is an example of the wish fathering the thought.

That’s why the Benghazi investigation should not be seen as a political event. Like Hillary Clinton’s secret server, which quite possibly exposed classified American diplomatic cables to foreign governments, the attack was a national security failure. The administration’s response to that national security failure, not this later investigation of it, is the scandal. What’s more, it is a scandal that is intuitively understood by just about anyone of modest political competence. That is, six weeks out from an election, Barack Obama’s White House was more concerned about the politics of the Benghazi attack than they were the security implications.

Democrats can rend garments over the political nature of the House GOP’s report all they want. They can call dub the results of the investigation a “conspiracy theory on steroids,” and go off on bizarre fundraising-friendly tangents about Donald Trump in their report on the committee’s findings. Their panicked reaction betrays a justified fear. The investigation paints a pretty clear picture of politicized behavior of the worst variety—one that the public can very easily comprehend. Republicans have Occam’s razor on their side. The very simplest explanation for the White House’s behavior suffices. It is a story of an administration more concerned with winning elections than relating a full and unvarnished account of the deadly attack in Benghazi. Despite all the bluster from Democratic partisans, that’s not “nothing.”"

2.Took bribes as Secretary of State from Nations
that kill gays, want to destroy Israel, support terrorism and enslave women, Monster Hillary defends attacks from Trump
laughably. Claims her phony foundation is charitable. 6% goes to charity. It’s
a slush fund for this treasonous bribe taker.https://www.facebook.com/RpblcJew/videos/10154105009650837/

Hillary’s
attack that Trump offers no details, is ridiculous for these reasons:https://www.facebook.com/RpblcJew/videos/10154106865090837/a. he has
much more details on policy than she does. Look at his websiteb. All
her detailed policies have proven to be ruinous as worst secretary of State of
all timec. Better
presidents paint broad pictures and the policy wonks implement them 1.2nd worst prez in last 100 years after
Obama? Carter, well known to get elbow deep in details 2.Best prez last 100 years, ended Cold
war, booming economy was Reagan, famous for paining broad picture and leaving
details to the experts

Disgraceful Democrats and guns. https://www.facebook.com/RpblcJew/videos/10154109785895837/ 1. House stunt was fundraising gimmick. 2. No laws they propose would have stopped any Islamic terror

3. For some reason Democrats love Islamic terrorists and want more here even though all our intelligence services say we cannot get them. They want to distract us by pretending to be concerned about guns. 4. Many Muslim terrorists plots involve bombs, knives, planes, cars, box cutters, beheadings, stabbings, not guns.5.Chicago has strictest gun laws and massive surge in gun violence. 6. Real Democratic goal is gun confiscation from citizens, rendering us defenseless just as Hitler and Stalin did. 7. Many of the hilariously hypocritical House Dems staging illegal sit in on House floor are gun OWNERS.

Here is link to the WSJournal article http://www.wsj.com/articles/pelosi-lives-matter-1466723407

Main thing to know about election season: NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, New York times, LA Times, NPR, AP, Washington Post etc. are not media. They are part of the Democratic Party. Turn off Fox. Turn on radio. In Chicago, Mike Gallagher 9. Rush 11-2 on 890 or Prager at 11-2 on 560. Hannity at 2-5 on 560. Joe Walsh at 5-7 on 560 Mark Levin 6-9 890, Savage at 9-12 WLS. Much better education.

Thursday, June 23, 2016

Hillary's attack on Trump that his policies lack detail is ridiculous for several reasons 1. He has more detailed policies than she does 2. All her decisions as Secr of State have proven to be ruinous 3. 2nd worst prez after Obama was Carter, well known for his involvement in details. Best prez in last 100 years Reagan, booming economy and ended cold war painted broad picture and left implementation to the experts.

Great news today the Supreme Court slapping down wanna be tyrant Obama again by affirming lower courts on their determination he violated the Constitution on Executive Action about amnesty that he, himself, said many times, he did not have the legal authority to do. http://www.speaker.gov/general/22-times-president-obama-said-he-couldn-t-ignore-or-create-his-own-immigration-law

Disconnecting the Dots: Blurring the Lines

In my childhood, one of the fun games in the daily newspaper was a "connecting the dots" puzzle. A simple system of drawing a line from one numbered dot to the other produced a picture any child could see. Every now and then a typo would occur in the printing of the paper and the result was an unsolvable puzzle with a blurred image. The newspaper would issue an apology to its readers and that was that. A harmless mistake in an innocent game.

The same solution does not hold true in more serious fields.

In the war on terrorism, substituting hard facts with esoteric rhetoric blurs the picture and creates confusion. The latest example of this situation, coming on the heels of the terrorist attack in Orlando, is the Department of Homeland Security's interim report on Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Subcommittee released this month.

This was not a wartime strategy report. On the contrary, this was the administration's latest initiative to move further away from the war on terrorism and blur the picture as to who the enemy really is.

The subcommittee was formed as part of the DHS's Homeland Security Advisory Council ("HSAC") last November. It was described by the department as "an incubator of ideas." It defines CVE as the actions taken to counter efforts by extremists to radicalize, recruit, or mobilize followers to violence. Who is a violent extremist you ask? According to the report, it is an individual who supports or commits ideologically-motivated violence to further political goals. And what type of weapons would one use in this fight? The committee recommends using "soft power tools." Soft power is a conceptual idea that persuasive words are more important than the use of force in a time of war.

This formation of the subcommittee and its objectives coincided with the terrorist attacks in Paris that killed 130 and injured more than 350 men women and children. The sophistication of the Paris attacks and the subsequent Brussels attacks led authorities to conclude that the terrorists had received prior combat training. Some had returned to Europe after fighting with ISIS in Syria.

One month after the subcommittee was formed, another terrorist attack occurred in San Bernardino, Calif., that left 14 people dead and 22 injured. The attack was carried out by a husband and wife jihadi team, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik.

In Orlando at the Pulse nightclub, Omar Mateen, having pledged bayat, or allegiance, to ISIS, opened fire on the crowd killing 49 people and wounding 53 others. His goal was not political. It was to rid the world of infidels.

In the original 9/11 Commission report, the committee clearly identified the enemy: It "is not just 'terrorism,' some generic evil. This vagueness blurs the strategy. The catastrophic threat at this moment in history is more specific. It is the threat posed byIslamist terrorism..."

And lest we think that pronouncement has changed in the 15 years since 9/11, we should look at the supplemental report issued by the commission 10 years later. In it, the members informed us that the threat of Islamic terrorism had not been defeated but had grown stronger, and had evolved in methodology, tactics and leadership.

When the current administration removes the words "radical Islamic terrorism" from the equation, it is more than a semantic faux pas. It is an intentional erasure of one of the dots necessary to see clearly the threat facing the United States. It identifies who has declared war on us.

Groups like al-Qaida, al-Shabaab, and ISIS are not looking to attract students to some philosophy or political science class.

They are soldiers, combat-hardened jihadists, sadistic killers. They are using every tool available to them to recruit more – social media, the internet, violent videos, fiery sermons. Soft power means nothing to them. They respond only to the sword.

When the president uses terms like "the full resources of the federal government" and "spare no effort" in responding to the latest terrorist attack by an Islamist, what exactly does it mean? To the average American it sounds like more rhetoric from the "incubator of ideas."

This administration and Congress must give the FBI and local law enforcement thenecessary resources, including the additional manpower and equipment necessary to face the current challenge of investigating numerous leads on ISIS sympathizers within our borders. And they must restore to our intelligence agencies the ability to collect and analyze the data necessary to track Islamic terrorist organization like ISIS.

In a time of war we need decisive action, not soft power tools.

IPT Senior Fellow Patrick Dunleavy is the former Deputy Inspector General for New York State Department of Corrections and author ofThe Fertile Soil of Jihad. He currently teaches a class on terrorism for the United States Military Special Operations School.

Beyond The New Normal: A New Era Of Growth

The United States is mired in the slowest economic recovery since the Great Depression. Worse, we are told by many economists and policymakers that things are not going to get much better. We are experiencing, they say, the “New Normal,” a permanent downward departure from America’s historic 3% growth rate. New Normal projections are an understandable response to the trauma of the financial panic, the European debt crisis, deleveraging, and downtrending demographics, summing to a suggestion of slower growth—maybe 2% per year–as far as the eye can see.

Indeed, with existing policy and leaders telling us to prepare for slower growth ahead, the New Normal is probably an accurate prediction. The New Normal, however, assumes we are powerless to do anything about it. Its fatalism runs counter to the American ethos. The great leadership challenge of our time is to show the future is still possible and to chart a path of economic resurgence.

We’ve seen this play before. Forty years ago, things also looked bleak. Inflation was starting to break out. Vietnam had dragged on for nearly a decade. Watergate was burbling. Oil prices were beginning a dramatic climb. We had entered what the Club of Rome asserted in its famous 1972 “Limits to Growth” report was a long state of decline. It was time to downgrade expectations, rein in ambitions, and hunker down for the lean decades ahead.

At first, the stagflationary 1970s seemed to vindicate this projected scarcity. In the late 1970s and early 80s, however, the United States (along with the UK and China) said “enough.” This downgraded future was not acceptable. The United States stood up and chose a bold, new, distinct path across a range of policies, unleashing waves of growth and technology not only in America but across the globe.

In the 1980s and 90s, the United States was one of the freest economies on earth. It consistently ranked, for example, among the top four nations in the Fraser Institute’s annual World Economic Freedom report. Economic growth averaged 3.4%. In the 2000s, however, regulation and spending accelerated. The quality of our legal environment and monetary policy declined. Combined with growing freedom around the globe, America’s relative competitiveness plunged.

By the 2012 World Economic Freedom report, the United States had fallen to 19th. Noting scholarship linking economic freedom with economic growth, the Fraser Institute’s latest ranking “implies that, unless policies undermining economic freedom are reversed, the future annual growth of the U.S. economy will be half its historic average of 3%.”

Such an outcome would dramatically downgrade the possibilities for American workers, investors, families, retirees–and, crucially, federal and state budgets. Economic growth is the force that provides opportunity for the young, ensures security for the old, and allows America’s diverse families and communities to pursue their idea of the American dream.

Consider the disaster the New Normal implies. Annual GDP growth of 2% over the next 30 years, compared to a continuation of the recent 3% growth trend, would result in an economy some $13 trillion smaller (in 2005 dollars) in 2042. Such an America would be a qualitatively different place.

A great challenge for leaders today is to explain this vast gulf in possible American futures—and to show how we might reinvigorate America’s growth engine.

Nearer term, the New Normal will continue to place a lid on employment.

At today’s feeble 2% growth rate, we might add a hundred or two hundred thousand jobs each month. Over the next five years, that’s around seven million jobs—barely enough to keep up with population growth. Three percent growth might yield around 10 million net new jobs.

Yet a 3% growth rate itself is slower-than-usual recovery speed; it is not an ambitious objective. Emerging from the current slump, we should grow at 4, 5, or 6% for several years, as we did in the mid-1980s. (Many cite the argument by Kenneth Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart that it takes economies longer to recover from a financial crisis than might otherwise be the case in a normal downturn. However, Michael Bordo and Joseph Haubrich took a closer look and found that the U.S. economy actually tends to grow faster after a financial crisis—that is, once growth arrives.) A strategy for implementing 4% growth for the next five years could add 14 million net new jobs—meaning that in 2017 seven million more Americans would be working compared to today’s plodding 2%. For jobs, budgets, and broad opportunity, economic growth towers over every consideration and should inform every policy debate.

So how do we spur such a growth track?

A simpler, flatter, more efficient tax code that rewards rather than punishes investment and entrepreneurship would divert capital from gold and Treasuries into new businesses and bring home trillions in foreign sourced earnings and global capital. Unfortunately, some in Washington and the states are proposing higher tax rates, new carve-outs, and favors that will make real tax reform impossible.

Washington can’t keep consuming an ever greater share of the economy. Harvard’s Alberto Alesina, looking at nations across the globe, shows robust negative effects on growth as a government’s share of the economy expands. Sadly, the federal government-economy ratio has jumped from 20% to 24%, and the current budget path makes this ratio worse over time. Does anyone believe the sprawling U.S. regulatory apparatus promotes economic growth? In each of the last two years, the Federal Register has grown by more than 81,000 pages. Rather than reforming or refining existing regulations to keep pace with the times and circumstances, Washington is busy draping vast new blankets of regulation over finance and health care and finding dozens of ways to interfere with our energy economy—a sector poised to deliver explosive growth in coming years. Federal Communications Commission micromanagement of broadband and mobile networks, meanwhile, could slow growth at the margins or, depending on regulatory whim, disrupt an entire innovation ecosystem.

A chief duty of America’s leaders will thus be to explain why we can’t afford these ever-expanding layers of taxes and regulation. For an economy like the United States that operates at the technological frontier, experimentation and entrepreneurship are essential. New firms, new products, and new ideas are the essence of growth.

Innovation, however, requires agility, investment, and deep commitments of time and energy to pursue ambitions whose outcomes are unknown. Too often regulations and taxes cement in place the current way of doing things; predetermine the structure of entire industries, and protect the status quo while deterring or prohibiting provocative upstarts.

In many cases, the benefits of regulation are negligible while the costs to American citizens are enormous. No estimate of regulatory costs can precisely gauge the impact of all our governmental rules in a dynamic economy, yet in a 2010 report the government’s own Small Business Administration estimated annual federal regulatory costs of $1.75 trillion.

Another way to look at it: if misguided regulation slows economic growth by just half a percent per year, the 2042 American economy would be $5 trillion smaller (in 2005 dollars). It is difficult to justify the bulk of today’s regulatory state against a possible $5-trillion-per-year dividend to our generation’s children. Real leaders—policymakers, yes, but also businessmen and entrepreneurs—need to show that with the right policy framework that supports entrepreneurship and investment, we can relight America’s lamps of innovation. In addition to comprehensive tax reform, a top-down regulatory rethink, and shrinking the government-to-GDP ratio, a pro-growth agenda should include:

• The promotion of international trade, thus expanding markets for American firms and keeping prices low for American consumers.

• Facilitating legal immigration, which is the source of so many new ideas and entrepreneurs.

• Reversing the trend of big government decisions through regulation that channels capital according to political influence, creates too-big-to-fail firms, and deters real entrepreneurship. A complex and shifting regulatory framework; increased regulation at the local, state, and federal levels; and a rise in litigation surrounding this regulatory trend is overwhelming business as well as those assigned to do the regulating. As CFO Magazinereported, “understaffed and overwhelmed regulators—at the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Reserve, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and elsewhere—had finalized only 110 of the 398 regulations they were tasked with crafting after Dodd-Frank was passed into law. This regulatory juggernaut has implemented just 30% of the required rulemaking for Dodd-Frank, but has generated more than 8,000 pages of additional rules and regulations, according to a report by the law firm of Davis, Polk & Wardwell.

• Stabilizing U.S. monetary policy, so that American firms, consumers, and the global financial system can count on a predictable value of the dollar.

Some look to the Federal Reserve to pump up nominal GDP with never-ending zero interest rates. Do these actions create real wealth? More likely, it steers money directed by big government to businesses, thus creating winners and losers, diverting attention from the real fiscal and regulatory obstacles, and possibly fueling the next financial mishap or even crash.

Might real factors beyond our control result in a potential growth rate lower than we’ve enjoyed these last few centuries? Sure. The converse, however, is also possible.

What if today’s relatively freer, more connected world allows good ideas to be created and shared at an even faster pace than before—at an even larger scale—resulting in a higher top-end growth potential?

What if we choose to unleash, rather than tie down, America’s deep human capital assets?

What if we reinvest, rather than draw down, our deep reservoirs of wealth?

What if growth greater than 3% is attainable? We don’t know the answer, but what we can do is set the levers within reach for “full speed ahead.” If we max out at 2.5%, that’s far better than the 1.5% that could result with today’s unacceptable “limits to growth” policies. Matt Ridley, author of The Rational Optimist, surveyed economic history going back thousands of years and persuasively showed that, well, optimism is rational—that progress surprises to the upside.

Progress, however, requires freedom, flexibility, experimentation, and a constant reexamination of our institutions. Those who think we can achieve great things by continuing to dig deeper holes are deluded. Likewise, the New Normal pessimists can probably achieve a self-fulfilling prophecy. A “rational optimism” that acknowledges hard realities and rebuilds the foundations of innovation and invention, however, can obliterate the New Normal and relaunch another American era of growth.

The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits last month.

The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.

The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.

On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel. None of the Clintons is on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the foundation.

In all, the group reported $84.6 million in “functional expenses” on its 2013 tax return and had more than $64 million left over — money the organization has said represents pledges rather than actual cash on hand.

Some of the tens of millions in administrative costs finance more than 2,000 employees, including aid workers and health professionals around the world.

But that’s still far below the 75 percent rate of spending that nonprofit experts say a good charity should spend on its mission.

Charity Navigator put the foundation on its “watch list,” which warns potential donors about investing in problematic charities. The 23 charities on the list include the Rev. Al Sharpton’s troubled National Action Network, which is cited for failing to pay payroll taxes for several years.

Other nonprofit experts are asking hard questions about the Clinton Foundation’s tax filings in the wake of recent reports that the Clintons traded influence for donations.

“It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons,” said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog group where progressive Democrat and Fordham Law professor Zephyr Teachout was once an organizing director.

In July 2013, Eric Braverman, a friend of Chelsea Clinton from when they both worked at McKinsey & Co., took over as CEO of the Clinton Foundation. He took home nearly $275,000 in salary, benefits and a housing allowance from the nonprofit for just five months’ work in 2013, tax filings show. Less than a year later, his salary increased to $395,000, according to a report in Politico.

Braverman abruptly left the foundation earlier this year, after a falling-out with the old Clinton guard over reforms he wanted to impose at the charity, Politico reported. Last month, Donna Shalala, a former secretary of health and human services under President Clinton, was hired to replace Braverman.

Nine other executives received salaries over $100,000 in 2013, tax filings show.

The nonprofit came under fire last week following reports that Hillary Clinton, while she was secretary of state, signed off on a deal that allowed a Russian government enterprise to control one-fifth of all uranium producing capacity in the United States. Rosatom, the Russian company, acquired a Canadian firm controlled by Frank Giustra, a friend of Bill Clinton’s and member of the foundation board, who has pledged over $130 million to the Clinton family charity.

The group also failed to disclose millions of dollars it received in foreign donations from 2010 to 2012 and is hurriedly refiling five years’ worth of tax returns after reporters raised questions about the discrepancies in its filings last week.

An accountant for the Clinton Foundation did not return The Post’s calls seeking clarification on its expenses Friday, and a spokesperson for the group refused comment.

EXCLUSIVE: Hillary Clinton once called disabled children at an Easter egg hunt 'f***ing ree-tards' and referred to Jews as 'stupid k***s' while Bill called Jesse Jackson a 'damned n****r,' claims Bill's former lover

Bill Clinton's former lover Dolly Kyle claims the Clinton couple regularly used racial epithets in her new book, Hillary: The Other Woman

She writes that Hillary was caught on record blurting out the terms 'stupid k**e' and 'f***ing Jew b*****d'

She says Bill called the Reverend Jesse Jackson a 'Goddamned n****r'

But rumors of Bill's trysts with black women were rampant in Little Rock

One prominent black female newscaster bragged openly about her relationship with the governor, although 'only' indulged in oral sex

Bill Clinton's 'three strikes' rule incarcerated 2.5 million people, including poor people of color who couldn't afford lawyers during their trials

When Hillary moved to Arkansas, she looked down her nose at what she viewed as 'ignorant hillbillies'

Bill and Hillary Clinton profess to have always been supporters of racial equality, but anecdotes published in a new book by his ex-lover claim otherwise.

Hillary was heard calling mentally challenged children 'f*****g ree-tards' and caught on record blurting out the terms 'stupid k**e and 'f***ing Jew b*****d', while Bill called the Reverend Jesse Jackson a 'G**damned n****r'.

Bill was also sued several times by blacks and Hispanics for violations of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Dolly Kyle - who was just 11 when she first crossed paths with Bill, dated him through high school and began sleeping with him once they graduated - published the claims about the Clinton couple's racial epithets and politics in her new book, Hillary: The Other Woman, published by WND Books.